> Has it? You'd think it would be in the papers or something.
> I mean, imagine the fame and fortune that would go to the guy who proved thousands of biologists wrong. The media would have a field day. But where are the exposes? The headlines? The press conferences?

For the simple reason that the only viable alternative to evolution means accepting a divine Creator, which many people are not prepared to accept.

> Then you were badly served by your teacher. Did it never occur to you to wonder why this teacher *was* the only one to make that claim?

Only? Not by a long shot.

> > Actually, Darwin himself said that evolution would be disproven if you could find one thing
> > that could not have evolved naturally. Let me give you some examples: blood clotting (it either
> > has 23 or 32 steps, I can't remember which).
>
> So? How does that mean that it couldn't have evolved naturally?

I'm not familiar with that particular example, but I'm familiar with others. My favorite is the bombardier beetle, which is able to shoot burning chemicals out its back end a few inches (I'm not making this up) as a defense mechanism. The biological system that allows this to happen requires two separate chambers for the two chemicals that, when mixed, ignite. There's a third chemical that keeps them from being harmful while inside the beetle. Then there's a tube leading from each of the chambers to a single tube that leads out. It has been shown that this system never could have evolved, because if that system were missing any one component, he'd be blowing himself up all the time and never could have possibly survived the millions of years supposedly required to evolve the correct pieces.

> > Complex eyes.
>
> The actual structure of eyes actually suggests evolution, rather than creation. They're not very efficient. The design suggests that *this* happened, then *that* changed to counteract the side-effects of *this* happening, then...

It's easy to make theories fit, but the evidence is all circumstantial. Creationists will tell you that we started out with much more efficient eyes but that over the generations there has been a degeneration in the quality of our bodies. (This same explanation fits why the adult mouth can't hold as many teeth as it once could.) Don't confuse this with devolution -- we're still the same species, just a less efficient version of ourselves. The fact that the Bible states that people routinely lived beyond a century lends credence to the theory that our bodies have declined in efficiency over the years. But, of course, this theory only holds water with those who already believe Creationism, right? Similarly, your explanation for how eyes might suggest evolution really only suggests it to those who already believe in evolution.

I'm posting this against my better judgment. I'm sure all of us here could parrot science textbooks till we're blue in the face. Trust me, no good will come of it, on either side. Again, let's suffice it to say there are rational reasons we should not be so quick to decide we know the truth of Life, the Universe, and Everything, and leave it at that.